UK News

Has the Blair backlash gone too far?

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair must feel like a hunted man. And that’s probably what his vocal critics want. First, he postpones his planned book signing because of possible protests and now a private party planned for the Tate Modern gallery has gone the same way.

The obvious cause of the anger prompted by Blair can be summed up by one word: “Iraq”.

Yet, he led Labour to a historic three successive election victories — the last one in 2005 coming when the conflict in Iraq had already turned bloody.

It’s all a far cry from 1997 when Blair was hailed as a bright new star who would guide Britain out of the grey years of the Major era. And maybe that’s the rub — so many put their faith and trust in him, that the disenchantment runs deeper than normal. Perhaps he could compare notes on the subject with President Obama next time he is in Washington.

But have things gone too far? Is there a freedom of speech issue here that means that Blair should be allowed to appear in public even if people have long tired of his message and his style?

A gentle start to the Iraq inquiry

After years of demands from anti-war campaigners, opposition politicians and relatives of dead soldiers, the official inquiry into the Iraq War finally began on Tuesday.

In a small, dark, unremarkable, windowless room, a government-appointed panel began its examination of the most controversial British foreign policy decision of recent decades.

It won’t be a trial, the Inquiry chairman said as he opened the public hearings, and nor did it feel like one.

The first witnesses – senior civil servants with a mass of experience in Whitehall – were gently quizzed on what British policy had been before the 9/11 attacks. One exchange summed up the friendly tone. Sir William Patey, the former head of the Middle East Department at the Foreign Office and now UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was asked to explain the problems in getting new sanctions agreed the UN security council.

There were problems with Russia as you probably know better than me, he told Sir Roderic Lyne, the inquiry member who asked the question. Lyne somewhat sheepishly explained he was Britain’s ambassador to Moscow at the time.

Such exchanges will no doubt raise fears among critics that the inquiry will prove toothless. Chairman John Chilcot says his team want to build a full picture of events to know what questions need answering.

Those who hoping for fireworks may well have to wait until the New Year for the eagerly awaited moment when former Prime Minister Tony Blair gives evidence. The inquiry might well need a bigger room then.

Will the Chilcot Iraq inquiry achieve anything?

Few investigations can have begun with lower expectations than the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war.

Critics have been withering:

– the Chairman Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall mandarin, has strong links to the establishment and is unlikely to rock the boat, they say.

– there are no senior legal figures on the panel capable of addressing the key issue of whether the invasion of Iraq was legal. None of the panel members has spoken out against the war.

– there is no political pressure for a radical result because the Tories voted for the invasion and the last thing they want is to let the inquiry rock the boat ahead of their expected general election victory in the Summer.

– the scope of the inquiry is too broad, possibly leading to insufficient detailed inquiries into complex issues.

But Chilcot has denied that his report will be a whitewash, there is clearly a widespread public desire to have all the lingering questions answered and the government has granted immunity from disciplinary action to serving officials and military personnel giving evidence to encourage them to give frank evidence.

Is powerful Mandy talking up the euro?

When Prime Minister Gordon Brown reshuffled his cabinet last week, fending off a challenge to his authority, a significant outcome was the creation of one of the most powerful ministerial jobs Britain has seen in years.

Peter Mandelson, a former European commissioner who has twice served in British governments in the past and twice been forced to resign, was reconfirmed as secretary of state for business, but also given greatly expanded authorities that make him a powerful if unofficial number two to Brown.

Much fun has been made of Mandelson’s new title, which because he has been elevated to the House of Lords in order to serve in the cabinet now officially reads as:

Brown fights fires at home while on U.S. trip

For Gordon Brown on his U.S. trip it has been a case of when the cat is away the mice will play. While Brown was at the White House working to shore up the “special relationship” with President George W. Bush, rebellion broke out in Labour ranks at home.

First, Labour peer Lord Desai launched an extraordinary attack on Brown, telling the Evening Standard: “Gordon Brown was put on earth to remind people how good Tony Blair was.”

Then it emerged that a junior member of Brown’s government, Angela Smith, was threatening to resign over Brown’s abolition of the 10 pence tax rate — a move that many Labour MPs fear will hit the low-paid and hurt Labour in May 1 local elections.

Smith’s on-off resignation was played out in real time on the 24-hour news channels. And just as Brown was about to give a news conference with Bush at the White House, news that Smith had told colleagues she was ready to quit broke.

The threat evidently caused consternation among Brown aides. A resignation of even such a junior minister when Brown was striding the world stage would have been hugely embarrassing.

There was silence from Smith’s office for several hours as, behind the scenes, Brown got on the phone to Smith to persuade her to change her mind. Then Smith issued a statement saying:”Resignation of my post … is not envisaged.”

So have the rumblings of discontent over Brown been blown out of proportion during a quiet news week? Or does it signal that his 10-month-old premiership is in irreversible decline?

from Ask...:

“We should talk with al Qaeda”, ex-Blair aide says

The government should look at ways of opening communication channels with groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban if it wants a long-term political solution as well as a security solution, a former senior aide to Tony Blair says.

Jonathan Powell, who served as Blair's chief of staff between 1995 and 2007, told the Guardian newspaper that such a policy helped secure a peace deal in Northern Ireland.

He was quoted as saying that a secret back channel between the British government and the IRA, first opened in the 1970s, was one of the key factors that contributed to a peace deal three decades later.

"It's very difficult for democratic governments to do - talk to a terrorist movement that's killing your people," he was reported as saying.

"[But] if I was in government now I would want to have been talking to Hamas, I would be wanting to communicate with the Taliban; and I would want to find a channel to al Qaeda."

The Foreign Office said it was "inconceivable" that it would ever seek to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation with al Qaeda, and has called on disaffected Afghans to renounce violence.

It has also told Hamas "dialogue is impossible so long as one party is dedicated to violence and the destruction of the other".